Universities should be free speech zones!!!11!1one

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities. Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.
1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.
2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.
3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized. These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

 

[Politesse]

Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities. Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.
1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.
2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.
3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized. These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

Because they think they're the only ones who get canceled. When they do it "back", it's "revenge" for their persecution.

 

[Derec]

Because they think they're the only ones who get canceled. When they do it "back", it's "revenge" for their persecution.

That is pretty much true. There is a huge double standard, especially in academia, but also in business. That racist psycho psychiatrist wasn't cancelled by Yale despite blatant racism and despite violent phantasies against white people.

On the other hand, if you are white, you do not even have to be racist to be cancelled. A student employee at a college radio station was fired merely for tweeting, truthfully, that Jacob Blake had a sexual assault warrant.

Arizona State University radio station votes to remove manager over Jacob Blake tweet


Basically, any criticism of the #BLM movement and their heroes will get you cancelled in many places.
Walter Cronkite is spinning in his grave ...

 

[Politesse]

See? If they aren't allowed to incite a race riot on campus, how come they aren't allowed to fire people for literal thought crimes?

 

[Derec]

See? If they aren't allowed to incite a race riot on campus, how come they aren't allowed to fire people for literal thought crimes?

Huh? This college fired a student radio station manager for a non-racist, factual tweet.
On the other hand, rank racism by non-whites does not lead to firings.

How is that just?

Also, you leftists defend racists like the psycho psychiatrist or Al Sharpton etc., but condemn white people for any transgression, no matter how minor or even imaginary.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

See? If they aren't allowed to incite a race riot on campus, how come they aren't allowed to fire people for literal thought crimes?

Huh? This college fired a student radio station manager for a non-racist, factual tweet.
On the other hand, rank racism by non-whites does not lead to firings.

How is that just?

I'm seeing accusation after accusation that I really don't have the energy to look into because it's not quite relevant to the op. It's just a defense because you are being defensive over the op question. Let's get back to the op. How do you explain the conservative principle at play? If you want to start screaming "libruhls are worse," it doesn't answer the question because you're not stopping to answer it. How do you explain the conservative principles at play?

 

[Derec]

I'm seeing accusation after accusation that I really don't have the energy to look into because it's not quite relevant to the op. It's just a defense because you are being defensive over the op question. Let's get back to the op. How do you explain the conservative principle at play? If you want to start screaming "libruhls are worse," it doesn't answer the question because you're not stopping to answer it. How do you explain the conservative principles at play?

What it points out is the racist double standard in academia. Also, academic freedom is not absolute. Saying all black people were psychopaths and that she fantasizes shooting them in the head would get a white psychiatrist cancelled within a nanosecond. It should not be any different for a Pakitani psycho psychiatrist who is racist against white people.

On the other hand, a student radio station manager should be able to tweet about current events without fear of reprisals for now toeing the party line. And that should go no matter their race, gender or whether they are right or left.

 

[untermensche]

See? If they aren't allowed to incite a race riot on campus, how come they aren't allowed to fire people for literal thought crimes?

Huh? This college fired a student radio station manager for a non-racist, factual tweet.
On the other hand, rank racism by non-whites does not lead to firings.

How is that just?

Also, you leftists defend racists like the psycho psychiatrist or Al Sharpton etc., but condemn white people for any transgression, no matter how minor or even imaginary.

We defend people from the thought police. Yes.

We criticize institutional widespread racism.

We condemn the rise of white nationalism and hate groups.

We support the message of black lives matter and are anti-fascist but not a supporter of every antifa tactic.

And don't care if some guy in his living room has racist thoughts.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm seeing accusation after accusation that I really don't have the energy to look into because it's not quite relevant to the op. It's just a defense because you are being defensive over the op question. Let's get back to the op. How do you explain the conservative principle at play? If you want to start screaming "libruhls are worse," it doesn't answer the question because you're not stopping to answer it. How do you explain the conservative principles at play?

What it points out is the racist double standard in academia. Also, academic freedom is not absolute. Saying all black people were psychopaths and that she fantasizes shooting them in the head would get a white psychiatrist cancelled within a nanosecond. It should not be any different for a Pakitani psycho psychiatrist who is racist against white people.

On the other hand, a student radio station manager should be able to tweet about current events without fear of reprisals for now toeing the party line. And that should go no matter their race, gender or whether they are right or left.

You seem incapable of answering the op question because you are so defensive you have to keep using the same attacks. Again, what do the observations say about conservative principles?

 

[Ahab]

2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

Who is claiming that trans people are evil?

Also, gender criticism crosses the conservative/liberal divide. Many gender critics also consider themselves to be liberals in regards to other political issues such as abortion rights or gay marriage.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay? But what does it say about conservative principles at play?

 

[Derec]

We defend people from the thought police. Yes.

Not all people. Only those on far left and/or anti-white racists. Also antisemites like Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar.

We criticize institutional widespread racism.

But not racism against white people. That is all right with you.

We condemn the rise of white nationalism and hate groups.

But not black nationalism or any sort of non-white nationalism.
You also condemn only some hate groups. Anti-white hate groups are fine with you. Same with anti-Israel hate groups.

We support the message of black lives matter and are anti-fascist but not a supporter of every antifa tactic.

Big deal! I support the message that black lives matter, but I condemn Black Lives Matter as an extremist, anti-police, pro-thug and, frankly, racist movement.
Same thing with Antifa. I am anti-fascist as well, but Antifa is an extremist movement (originated as a paramilitary organization within the German Communist Party in the 1920s) that sees everyone to the right of them as "fascist". They end up being mirror images of fascists.
A lot of the people Black Lives Matter champions terrorized and victimized other black lives before they were shot.

And don't care if some guy in his living room has racist thoughts.

But care a lot if some student employee dares to tweet contrary to the party line that Jacob Blake is a hero we should all be proud of ...

 

[laughing dog]

Most college campuses and their policies do not make the news. The incidents reported in the news (which are almost always incomplete) are the exceptions. It is foolish to generalize from isolated incidents.

In the ASU case, it is students who are "cancelling" another student, not ASU for violating journalistic ethics. That general principle of firing a journalist for violating journalistic ethics is a good one. Whether that general principle was properly applied in this instance is a different question.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities. Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.
1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.
2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.
3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized. These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

I think there is also a terrible amount of noise. How many people speak at colleges? How many were stopped from speaking? How many are actually controversial? How many were just conservative?

Ann Coulter is cancelled and that is complained about. That an author couldn't speak. An author whose entire career is based on lies and slander. Richard Spencer isn't allowed to speak, guy is a flat out supremacist. Milo? He's a social media troll. These people are vile and their only message is either supremacism, uncritical thought, or self-promotion. We are being told this is anti-free speech of conservative views. If you view these people as conservatives, you are in the wrong classroom.

How many actual conservatives, have spoken at campuses?

And regarding curriculum, how many classes actually address any of this stuff?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How many actual conservatives, have spoken at campuses?

It happens all the time. Commencement addresses and whatever. For example, remember that time conservative Robert Bork gave a speech at Yale? He was definitely a conservative because he was a SC nominee. One thing he argued for was tort reform because you know little guys were suing big guys for too much money and conservatives take the position of protecting corporations and wealthy. Anyway, yeah, when he went to give his speech, he tripped and fell. So he sued the Yale club hosting the speech and they settled for $1 million. In his defense, there was no handrail and he was old. He actually did physically suffer as a result of the fall. His settlement was more money than the old lady with the hot coffee in her lap ended up getting in the end.

 

[Mumbles]

Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities. Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.
1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.
2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.
3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized. These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

I think there is also a terrible amount of noise. How many people speak at colleges? How many were stopped from speaking? How many are actually controversial? How many were just conservative?

Ann Coulter is cancelled and that is complained about. That an author couldn't speak. An author whose entire career is based on lies and slander. Richard Spencer isn't allowed to speak, guy is a flat out supremacist. Milo? He's a social media troll. These people are vile and their only message is either supremacism, uncritical thought, or self-promotion. We are being told this is anti-free speech of conservative views. If you view these people as conservatives, you are in the wrong classroom.

How many actual conservatives, have spoken at campuses?

And regarding curriculum, how many classes actually address any of this stuff?

Well, the real problem with Coulter and particularly Milo is that they target specific students for harm, which is a gross violation of the university's obligations to the student body. He shouldn't be allowed to give public speeches not because he's "conservative", but because he's a threat to public safety.

To look at another issue, UNC recently denied tenure to Nikola Hannah-Jones (who has more major awards than most journalism departments), on the word of a donor who was angry at what he falsely assumes was in the 1619 project. Among other things, he ignored the multiple references to black Americans loving their country, and holding firm on the ideals it's supposed to uphold, in order to claim that the 1619 project "teaches black people to hate America", and studies typically find that outright censorship of leftist speakers is more common than rightwing speakers.

It may be true that a student expressing hatred for racial/sexual/gendered groups will be broadly *unpopular* on campus, but "free speech" can come with unpopularity. When it comes to outright censorhip, it's usually the right that wants governmnents to lay into various subject - see the howling over "CRT" as another example. In otherr words, the "free speech warriors" (you know, the same folks that threatened to rape and murder women who star in movies, make or criticize video games, and so on) are not too big on actual free speech.

Imagine that!

 

[Emily Lake]

Conservatives have been screaming for some time that the left wants to cancel people for offensive speech at universities. Interestingly, there are currently three threads that at least touch a little on this topic.
1. In one thread a guest lecturer at Yale offends a lot of conservatives by talking about whiteness negatively and fantasies of killing white people, i.e. thought crimes. Conservatives say they want her to lose her job, i.e. cancel her.
2. In another thread we learn academic freedom to question if trans people are evil is sacred and further universities can't be safe spaces. So shut up, snowflake.
3. Flipping this all around yet again, the thread on Juneteenth, a celebration of freeing slaves in US, got derailed by conservatives who felt victimized because their new draconian laws were criticized. These laws in some instances applied to universities and stifle free speech and academic freedom, stifling discussion of modern racism.

Without discussing the details of all those threads, how do you explain the conservative "principle" here?

I think your premise is flawed. I don't think you can lay this at the feet of "conservatives". I also think it's lazy, disingenuous, and fallacious to just pin everything on conservatives then go attack that strawman.

For item 1: I'm not a conservative, and I don't think Metaphor is either. I'm not even all that sure that Derec of Tswizzle or Trausti would qualify as "conservatives" outside of this specific forum. "Not as far left as you" is not the same as "conservative".

With that said, I have no objection to Yale having Khilanani lecture there. I defend her right to say whatever she wants to. But I DO have a problem with the content of her speech, and I do think that she should not be placed above criticism for her expressed views. I also think that her expressed racist views call into question her ability to treat her patients fairly and objectively. And I think that's all worth discussing.

For Item 2: That's a dramatic mischaracterization of the topic. I mean, just not at all what's going on. The situation was prompted by an open letter from trans rights activists, insisting that a discussion of the effect of gender self-identification in law and the impact on sex-based rights was *inherently* dangerous. Not anything actually planning to be said, but the entire topic from the ground up. The current position of the university creates a situation where women are NOT ALLOWED to talk about their sex-based rights, and where failure to use a person's preferred pronouns - even if they are not a student - can result in job loss.

In both of those cases, this isn't a "conservatives" versus "liberal" argument. And framing it as such is dishonest.

 

[untermensche]

Not all people. Only those on far left and/or anti-white racists. Also antisemites like Rashida Tlaib or Ilhan Omar.

We defend them from the pro-Israeli fascists who support decades of murder rape and torture.

But not racism against white people. That is all right with you.

Thoughts are not racism.

And when you grow up with institutional racism all around you hating the people in power supporting the system is natural and good.

But not black nationalism or any sort of non-white nationalism.

Correct. Not imaginary nothingness.

I condemn Black Lives Matter as an extremist, anti-police, pro-thug and, frankly, racist movement.

You are entitled to bad opinions like this you can't defend with any rational argument.

I am anti-fascist as well

You are not.

You are part of the problem.

 

[Emily Lake]

And when you grow up with institutional racism all around you hating the people in power supporting the system is natural and good.

So you're saying that it is natural and good for women to hate men, and express a desire to shoot them in the head? Or does this special pleading only apply to race with respect to power, but doesn't apply to sex with respect to power?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And when you grow up with institutional racism all around you hating the people in power supporting the system is natural and good.

So you're saying that it is natural and good for women to hate men, and express a desire to shoot them in the head? Or does this special pleading only apply to race with respect to power, but doesn't apply to sex with respect to power?

Desire and clinically defined fantasy are separate things. Also, this thread isn't for nuances of those threads.